阈下威胁刺激在不同面孔类型中对返回抑制的影响
Effects of Subliminal Threat Stimuli on Inhibition of Return under Different Face Types
DOI: 10.12677/AP.2020.113073, PDF,   
作者: 杨 婷：南京师范大学心理学院，江苏 南京
关键词: 阈下；威胁刺激；中性刺激；返回抑制；Subliminal； Threat Stimuli； Neutral Stimuli； Inhibition of Return
摘要: 本研究旨在用不同面孔类型的方式阈下呈现威胁刺激和中性刺激，探讨阈下不同线索刺激对返回抑制影响的不同。实验以扭曲面孔作为威胁刺激、中性面孔作为中性刺激，并将自我和他人面孔作为两种不同情况进行研究。研究结果显示：1) 线索有效时被试平均反应时均长于线索无效时，其中自我扭曲面孔返回抑制量最少(13.84 ms)，其次为自我中性面孔(17.14 ms)、他人扭曲面孔(18.56 ms)，他人中性面孔(23.00 ms)返回抑制量最多。2) 面孔威胁类型主效应显著，F(1, 37) = 4.57，p < 0.05，η2 = 0.11，其中扭曲面孔作为线索时被试对靶刺激的反应时间比中性面孔作为线索时更长。3) 线索有效性主效应显著，F(1, 37) = 18.93，p < 0.001，η2 = 0.34，说明在各种线索刺激下都出现了返回抑制现象。4) 其他主效应、交互作用不显著。研究结果表明：与中性刺激相比，阈下呈现以扭曲面孔为代表的威胁刺激在自我面孔和他人面孔两种情况下都能够有效吸引被试的注意，其中自我威胁刺激最吸引注意；返回抑制现象是一种“盲信机制”，但也会受线索类型的影响。
Abstract: The aim of this study was to investigate whether subliminal threat stimuli and neutral stimuli based on different faces have different effects on the inhibition of return. We use distorted faces as threat stimuli, neutral faces as neutral stimuli, use the faces of self and the faces of others as two different clues. The results show that: 1) The average response time of cue-validity is longer than cue-invalidity; the average response time of self-distorted face is the least (13.84 ms), then self-neutral face (17.14 ms) and other distorted face (18.56 ms), other neutral face (23.00 ms) is the most. 2) The main effect of face threat type is significant, F(1, 37) = 4.57, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.11; the reaction time of distorted face is longer than neutral face. 3) The main effect of cue-validity is significant, F(1, 37) = 18.93, p < 0.001, η2 = 0.34, which indicated that the inhibition of return appeared in all kinds of cues. 4) No other significant main effects and interactions were found. The conclusions are as follows: compared with neutral stimuli, subliminal threat stimuli represented by distorted faces can effectively attract the attention of subjects and compete for attention resources in both self-face and other-face; inhibition of return is a “blindness mechanism”, but also affected by the type of clue.
文章引用：杨婷 (2021). 阈下威胁刺激在不同面孔类型中对返回抑制的影响. 心理学进展, 11(3), 639-645. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2020.113073

参考文献

[1] 程蕾, 黄希庭(2016). 自我面孔再认能力的发展及其效应. 中国健康心理学杂志, (1), 155-160.
[2] 邓晓红, 张德玄, 黄诗雪, 袁雯, 周晓林(2010). 阈上和阈下不同情绪线索对返回抑制的影响. 心理学报, 42(3), 325-333.
[3] 潘益中, 许燕(2011). 高脆弱自尊在自我威胁后的归因与情绪转换. 心理科学, 34(1), 166-171.
[4] 裴冠雄, 尚倩(2016). 阈下金钱线索对返回抑制的调节作用. 应用心理学, 22(3), 280-288.
[5] 钱浩悦, 胡蝶, 高湘萍(2016). 自我面孔对返回抑制的影响: 来自指数高斯分布的证据. 心理科学, 39(5), 1051-1057.
[6] 孙亚文, 贺雯, 罗俊龙(2015). 随迁儿童元刻板印象威胁对工作记忆的影响群际焦虑的中介作用. 心理学报, 47(11), 1349-1359.
[7] 王敬欣, 贾丽萍, 白学军, 罗跃嘉(2013). 返回抑制过程中情绪面孔加工优先: ERPs研究. 心理学报, 45(1), 1-10.
[8] 王敬欣, 贾丽萍, 张阔, 张赛(2013). 不同位置的情绪面孔加工对返回抑制的影响. 心理科学, 36(2), 335-339.
[9] 王丽丽, 罗跃嘉, 郭亚桥, 张庆林(2010). 面孔方位对返回抑制的影响. 心理科学, 33(1), 100-103.
[10] 吴晓刚, 施亮, 李乐源, 潘发达(2017). 内隐情绪加工对返回抑制效应的调节. 心理与行为研究, 15(5), 619-625.
[11] 徐欣颖, 高湘萍(2017). 自我威胁刺激对返回抑制的影响. 心理科学, 40(2), 296-302.
[12] 姚项哲惠(2014). 从进化视角看自我信息加工的灵活性——情境与人际关系对面孔识别的影响. 硕士学位论文, 上海: 上海师范大学.
[13] 张禹, 罗禹, 赵守盈, 陈维, 李红(2014). 对威胁刺激的注意偏向: 注意定向加速还是注意解除困难? 心理科学进展, 22(7), 1129-1138.
[14] Amir, N., Elias, J., Klumpp, H., & Przeworski, A. (2003). Attentional Bias to Threat in Social Phobia: Facilitated Processing of Threat or Difficulty Disengaging Attention from Threat? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 1325-1335.[CrossRef] 
[15] Devue, C., & Brédart, S. (2008). Attention to Self-Referential Stimuli: Can I Ignore My Own Face? Acta Psychologica, 128, 290-297.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[16] Lange, W. G., Heuer, K., Reinecke, A., Becker, E. S., & Rinck, M. (2008). Inhibition of Return Is Unimpressed by Emotional Cues. Cognition & Emotion, 22, 1433-1456.[CrossRef] 
[17] Ma, Y., & Han, S. (2009). Self-Face Advantage Is Modulated by Social Threat—Boss Effect on Self-Face Recognition. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1048-1051.[CrossRef] 
[18] Ma, Y., & Han, S. (2010). Why We Respond Faster to the Self than to Others? An Implicit Positive Association Theory of Self-Advantage during Implicit Face Recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance, 36, 619.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[19] Pedersen, W. S., Tugan, M. L., & Larson, C. L. (2018). Conservatism and the Neural Circuitry of Threat: Economic Conservatism Predicts Greater Amygdala—BNST Connectivity during Periods of Threat vs Safety. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 13, 43-51.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[20] Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of Visual Orienting. In H. Bouma, & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and Performance X: Control of Language Processes (Vol. 32, pp. 531-556). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[21] Rubenking, B., & Lang, A. (2014). Captivated and Grossed Out: An Examination of Processing Core and Sociomoral Disgusts in Entertainment Media. Journal of Communication, 64, 543-565.[CrossRef] 
[22] Sapir, A., Jackson, K., Butler, J., Paul, M. A., & Abrams, R. A. (2014). Inhibition of Return Affects Contrast Sensitivity. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 1305-1316.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[23] Silvert, L., & Funes, M. J. (2016). When Do Fearful Faces Override Inhibition of Return? Acta Psychologica, 163, 124-134.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[24] Taylor, T. L., & Therrien, M. E. (2005). Inhibition of Return for Faces. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 1414-1422.[CrossRef] 
[25] Taylor, T. L., & Therrien, M. E. (2008). Inhibition of Return for the Discrimination of Faces. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 279-290.[CrossRef]